April 2nd, 2012
"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years
what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said.
Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected
group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."
The Supreme Court -- which heard three days
of arguments on the law last week -- is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate, and perhaps the entire law itself, in June of this year.
Obama said he's "confident" that the high court
"will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
During last week's Supreme Court hearings
, some conservative justices had harsh questions about the law's key feature, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy some form of health insurance or pay a fine.
Some critics say that requirement,
as well as most of the health care law itself, is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.
Orin Hatch of Utah said he didn't know
what dream land the President was living in. He said that he and many others have been protesting ever since the law was passed that it was unconstitutional and represented government "over-reach".
Hatch has not distinguished himself intellectually
in his time in Congress, and showed here quite clearly why that may be the case. The Supreme Court has upheld the power of Congress to levy taxes and penalties for a variety of reasons and under the auspices of a number of commonly accepted principles and articles of the U.S. Constitution, and Supreme Court itself has set many precedents in affirming the duly constituted authority and power of Congress to deal comprehensively with such matters in the normal course of governing and and in the performance of its legislative responsibilities. To claim Congress cannot do it now, is to ignore a couple hundred years of rulings by distinguished justices who preceded those currently on the court.
Another case of a right wing political hack vehemently
protesting judicial activism and then running out at any and every opportunity and exultantly championing "judicial activism" when it serves his own partisan purpose -- that of of over-turning or thwarting the clear intent of a democratically elected Congress and President and the legislation and laws passed by them.